Uploaded July 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
The 17th Annual Sir Hugh Laddie lecture organised by the UCL Institute of Brand & Innovation Law
The 2025 Sir Hugh Laddie Lecture on
Patent Law Harmonisation: How we got this far
delivered by The Rt Hon Sir Christopher Floyd, Former Lord Justice of Appeal; Honorary Professor, Faculty of Laws, University College London
Chaired by The Rt Hon Professor Sir Robin Jacob, UCL IBIL
About this talk:
Patent law harmonisation has long been a stated objective of many countries. Differences, some quite important, still remain at the global level, however. There is a reluctance amongst states to change laws which appear to work well solely for the purposes of harmonisation. On the other hand, the member states of the Unified Patent Court Agreement ("UPCA") have planned and realised a system which goes beyond mere harmonisation (which does not always work satisfactorily) to uniform application of substantive patent laws. The system allows for enforcement and revocation before a court common to the member states of unitary patents granted by the European Patent Office and which apply to all the states party the agreement. The lecture reflects on the history of this harmonisation and unification process and examines how such a remarkable result was achieved.
About the Laddie Lecturer:
Sir Christopher Floyd was a judge of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales from April 2013 until he retired from full-time sitting in 2021. From October 2018 he was the supervising judge for intellectual property cases in the Court of Appeal. From 2007 he was a judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court, a judge and subsequently judge in charge of the Patents Court, and a Deputy Chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Before becoming a judge, he practised as a barrister in intellectual property law from his chambers at 11 South Square, Gray’s Inn, becoming Queen’s Counsel in 1992. Whilst in practice he was a Deputy Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal, Chairman of the Intellectual Property Bar Association and a Recorder. He is now an Honorary Professor of Law, Faculty of Laws, University College London and has returned to 11 South Square as a consultant.
The 17th Annual Sir Hugh Laddie lecture organised by the UCL Institute of Brand & Innovation Law
The 2025 Sir Hugh Laddie Lecture on
Patent Law Harmonisation: How we got this far
delivered by The Rt Hon Sir Christopher Floyd, Former Lord Justice of Appeal; Honorary Professor, Faculty of Laws, University College London
Chaired by The Rt Hon Professor Sir Robin Jacob, UCL IBIL
About this talk:
Patent law harmonisation has long been a stated objective of many countries. Differences, some quite important, still remain at the global level, however. There is a reluctance amongst states to change laws which appear to work well solely for the purposes of harmonisation. On the other hand, the member states of the Unified Patent Court Agreement ("UPCA") have planned and realised a system which goes beyond mere harmonisation (which does not always work satisfactorily) to uniform application of substantive patent laws. The system allows for enforcement and revocation before a court common to the member states of unitary patents granted by the European Patent Office and which apply to all the states party the agreement. The lecture reflects on the history of this harmonisation and unification process and examines how such a remarkable result was achieved.
About the Laddie Lecturer:
Sir Christopher Floyd was a judge of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales from April 2013 until he retired from full-time sitting in 2021. From October 2018 he was the supervising judge for intellectual property cases in the Court of Appeal. From 2007 he was a judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court, a judge and subsequently judge in charge of the Patents Court, and a Deputy Chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Before becoming a judge, he practised as a barrister in intellectual property law from his chambers at 11 South Square, Gray’s Inn, becoming Queen’s Counsel in 1992. Whilst in practice he was a Deputy Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal, Chairman of the Intellectual Property Bar Association and a Recorder. He is now an Honorary Professor of Law, Faculty of Laws, University College London and has returned to 11 South Square as a consultant.






![Regulatory Models for Algorithmic Assessment: Robust Delegation or Kicking The Can?
A UCL Laws lecture recording from 25 April 2024.
Speakers: Prof. Margot Kaminski (University of Colorado Law School), Associate Prof. Michael Veale (UCL Laws) and Assistant Prof. Jennifer Cobbe (University of Cambridge).
Chair: Andrew Strait (Ada Lovelace Institute)
Recent years have seen a surge in regulation targeting algorithmic systems, including online platforms (Online Safety Act [UK], Digital Services Act [EU]), artificial intelligence (AI Act [EU], AI Executive Order [US]), and the application and extension of existing frameworks, such as data protection, to algorithmic challenges (UK and EU GDPR, California Consumer Privacy Act and Draft Automated Decisionmaking Technology Regulations [USA]). Much of the time, these instruments require regulated actors to undertake or outsource some form of assessment, such as a risk assessment, impact assessment or conformity assessment, to ensure the systems being deployed have desired characteristics. On first glance, all these assessments look like the same regulatory mode — but are they? What are policymakers and regulators actually doing when they outsource the analysis of such systems to actors or audit ecosystems, and under what conditions might it produce good regulatory results? Is the AI Acts conformity assessment really the same kind of beast as the Digital Services Act or Online Safety Acts risk assessment, or the GDPRs data protection impact assessment? Is this just kicking the can on value-laden issues, like fairness or transparency, representativeness or speech norms, down to other actors, because legislators dont want to do it?
In this discussion, three scholars of these systems will compare and contrast different regulatory regimes concerning AI with a focus on how actors within them can understand the systems around them. Does the outsourcing of the analysis of how AI systems work make sense, and is it given to actors with the position and analytic capacity to do it, or might it lead to regulatory arbitrage or even failure? Regulatory Models for Algorithmic Assessment: Robust Delegation or Kicking The Can?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lbVEgSLO3iY/mqdefault.jpg)



